Talk:Bruce Lipton

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to pseudoscience and fringe science, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This article was nominated for deletion on 13 March 2020. The result of the discussion was keep.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bruce Lipton article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 12 months

Biography: Science and Academia

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group.

Alternative medicine

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine

Alternative views Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Skepticism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Science-Based Medicine

Science-Based Medicine is a reliable source used on many Wikipedia articles. There is no valid reason to remove it from this article. Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:29, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLPSPS is a valid reason. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:31, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Science-Based Medicine is not a self-published source, many scientists write articles for the website and it has a good editorial process [1]. Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:37, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And it has a good "review" at WP:SBM. My take is that it still fails BLPSPS in this [2] context. Gorski calling Lipton a crank in his blog-post does not merit inclusion (even if Gorski is also the blog's editor), IMO the policy-language is quite clear. Consensus will be what it will be. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:50, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SBM says "Editors do not consider Science-Based Medicine a self-published source", this contradicts the WP:BLPSPS you keep linking to. It's obvious this is not a self-published source, it's odd why you would claim that in the first place. WP:BLPSPS does not apply here. You have not given any valid reason to remove the reference so the reference should be restored. I am seeing a lot of anti- quackwatch and SBM on Wikipedia in the last few months, this type of behaviour is damaging Wikipedia, it plays into the hands of those who peddle nonsense and pseudoscience. We do not need to be removing reliable sources. Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:57, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I claim that because the site (and WP) says it's a blog, and BLPSPS says "Never use ... blogs ... as sources of material about a living person". Blogs are generally self-published, and BLP argues for not using those. SBM can be good for lots of science-stuff, but "Lipton is crank" is not science. That said, I'm not reverting again. Once is enough for this (perceived) BLP-issue. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:02, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-vaccine views section

Bruce Lipton does indeed hold anti-vax views (many videos can be found on his social media profiles and YouTube). However, the section "Anti-vaccine views" does not cite any sources that mention Lipton. All the sources in this section are off-topic because they do not specifically mention Lipton. This is a case of WP:OR. Psychologist Guy (talk) 14:19, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked at older versions of the article, the article was citing YouTube interviews with Lipton about his anti-vax views. I wouldn't oppose restoring these sources, although others may object to YouTube being cited. Psychologist Guy (talk) 14:22, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unjustified Discreditation

All scientists have views or opinions that mainstream people who have zero knowledge or have done zero studies or examinations have conflict with. This is includes Einstein, Oppenheimer, and much of the prominent scientists of our era. Scientists of all ages have had views that which were outdated, OR, proven later to have validity. This is no reason to markedly discredit someone on an academic intentioned website such as wikipedia. Such action is cowardly and unscientific by nature and does not contribute to global understanding of the sciences. If there is something you disagree with, add to the discussion, provide counter arguments, but not remove someone's works and well-deserved research. If you disagree with his anti-vaccination views, then provide pro-vaccination arguments. This is unscientific and makes wikipedia an unreliable reference for gaining insights and information on people who may or may not be correct on matters, and that is the majority of scientists. 2600:1700:612:4D50:B83B:30AB:35B5:3E63 (talk) 19:01, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A key virtue in the design of Wikipedia is that it routinely rejects the burden of determining fact, notability and viewpoints by relying on reliable secondary sources to do that, and instead includes their conclusions in the encyclopedia. Wikipedia itself does not do research or judgement, and instead relies on summarizing and presenting those sources that are purposed and equipped to do that work. _signed,Willondon (talk) 19:04, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your logic fails. See Galileo Gambit.

Also, your logic is irrelevant because Wikipedia articles are not based on what Wikipedia users think. See WP:RS. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:21, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This person is correct. This is erasing history that started in the 60s because someone BELIEVES something NOW is pseudoscientific. Someone or a group of close-minded people had a bone to pick with Lipton or whatever group they associate him with. 104.175.201.138 (talk) 15:44, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 20 March 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Remove "...advocates various pseudosciences, including vaccine misinformation." Biographies of living persons policy, libelous information (such as calling someone 'pseudoscience') must be kept out of such biographies unless very well-referenced. Student2067 (talk) 20:11, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now correctly attributed by GiantSnowman. Tollens (talk) 08:32, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bad article

Close-minded. The article completely discredits any of Bruce Lipton's pioneering work in epigenetics. Work he was ridiculed for... Do you see a pattern here? Perhaps what he suffers from is being ahead of his time, and people being unwilling to consider that very smart people may have views that contradict theirs and the norm. That those ideas may have validity. Attaching a label like psuedoscience is just that, a label. It's rhetoric. "Science" is a human construct like anything else and prone also to cult-like behavior. I expected better of Wikipedia. 104.175.201.138 (talk) 15:39, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Its not pioneering if people ignore it is it? Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:11, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I follow. Everywhere else credits him with his groundbreaking work in epigenetics. 104.175.201.138 (talk) 04:40, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the very least the article should have a proper introduction paragraph. The first paragraph just sounds like bashing Bruce Lipton instead of giving an overview of who he is. Nplonka (talk) 21:32, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A highly biased opening paragraph

Why is it staying in place?

I am not competent to write according to Wikipedia's encyclopaedic style to rewrite it.

Just remarking that that paragraph nearly prevented me from finding out more about Lipton as a scientist. Janosabel (talk) 17:46, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]